Audacity wrote: In a nut shell: Determinism in no way suggests that anyone is programming anything. It's simply a recognition that all things happen for a reason. Reasons that no one has any control over. One does not have the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, as free will suggests.

this strikes me as a chimera made up of personal preferences and...something...nihilism? Not sure. "Things happen for a reason" does not equal "i have no choices to make," else the difference in instinct v free will is obscured.

Which is why I said "Reasons that no one has any control over." And because one has no control over the reasons they act as they do it cannot be said they make any choice to act as they do.

A dog acts on instinct, for instance, but can still evince preferences--for chocolate, say--and act on choices. So then the concept of "Free Will" is not even well defined, most of the time imo.

So what?

Definition of free will. ........"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."........Source: Wikipedia

bbyrd009 wrote:Arguments against free will are just attempts to reject God on a different level, using the cloak of "omniscience" as cover imo.

Never heard this one before. Just how did you come by it? Read it? Hear it? Figure it out on your own?

um, no, i don't think i made that up, anyway...trying to think of what key words you might search...ha well dang, maybe i did make it up? lol. I seriously doubt i am the first, and i'm guessing that search has just turned into such yack that i will not be able to direct you to a relevant link.

But i got there by common sense, imo, or standing on shoulders, whatever. God gives us children to understand the analogies in Scripture; and while we are not "omniscient," our kids certainly have the perception that we are, as parents, and of course they just cannot understand how it is that we "know" certain things about them. Right?

So from that, it is not too hard to see imo why people seek to swing the pendulum too far @ "omniscience," in order to negate free will, which after all is represented to us as having "choices," when even a dog has these same choices, but does not have free will, the "knowledge" of evil and good. So, even the concept of "Free Will" is misrepresented, and then negated, to disconnect the Body of Christ from manifesting Christ in their choices, which will of course bring heaven here, but now you are up against a huge body of Est'd Religion assuring people that Jesus "was" God, and has...some other body, from who knows where, that is Coming Back to get them, and take them...Somewhere Else, Someday. Maybe. Conditions and exclusions apply.

thus, "heaven on earth" cannot possibly simply be how we all thought the world was going to be when we were little kids, almost surely probably.

And it then becomes ok to tolerate all manner of evil, today, and trash the planet, today, because "Jesus is going to make us a new earth," lol, disregarding that the earth you live on right now would be considered an alien planet, if you described your life to someone from 1000 or likely even 100 years ago...etc.

there must be Scripture for this, hmm.

Thing is, I've never heard any atheist say they needed to show free will to be false in order to reject the existence of god. In fact, there are quite a few atheists who do believe in free will. And although I believe most atheists are determinists, the free will-determinism issue just doesn't appear all that important to them.

oh i think professed Christians are much more likely to have their free will abrogated, or be the ones denying it some way or other.

Audacity wrote: In a nut shell: Determinism in no way suggests that anyone is programming anything. It's simply a recognition that all things happen for a reason. Reasons that no one has any control over. One does not have the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, as free will suggests.

this strikes me as a chimera made up of personal preferences and...something...nihilism? Not sure. "Things happen for a reason" does not equal "i have no choices to make," else the difference in instinct v free will is obscured.

Which is why I said "Reasons that no one has any control over." And because one has no control over the reasons they act as they do it cannot be said they make any choice to act as they do.

ah, ok. I would term this person "asleep" or "unconscious" or "unaware" perhaps, unwilling to assume control of their actions; but this does not mean they have no control, obviously. It just means that they are not interested in assuming responsibility for it.

Audacity wrote:

A dog acts on instinct, for instance, but can still evince preferences--for chocolate, say--and act on choices. So then the concept of "Free Will" is not even well defined, most of the time imo.

So what?

Definition of free will. ........"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."........Source: Wikipedia

so, like the definition for many things, a long list of Biblical terms now, Wikipedia is as errant as most secular sources. Wikipedia's first def for "tares" is "weeds" now, too. You can read with a shovel, or a broom, i guess. "The ability to choose between different possible courses of action" is a retarded conceptualization of "Free Will," as the dog example might illuminate. So then, free will is reduced to your choices for what you might have for dinner, then, and then discussed among "Christians" as possibly not even existing, with straight faces, oblivious to the fact that there is no reason to change your mind if God has determined every roll of the dice.

bbyrd009 wrote:Arguments against free will are just attempts to reject God on a different level, using the cloak of "omniscience" as cover imo.

Never heard this one before. Just how did you come by it? Read it? Hear it? Figure it out on your own?

something else i notice is that "the veil" is also mis represented, in the "no free will" pov. It then becomes pointless to change one's mind, right?

"Veil"? I have no idea what you're talking about.

ah, sorry, the Scriptural reference to a reality that people choose not to see, or intentionally misunderstand, or whatever other device they might use to avoid facing a truth, usually with increasingly violent abandon, the clearer the truth becomes. Like you are doing right now with all due respect. See you could have went to wikipedia and gotten a perfectly valid enough definition of "the veil" if you had wanted, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil, but that did not serve your purpose, which becomes evident by the syntax of the rest of your proclamation. And of course this makes me look like a heel, now, but i am as susceptible as anyone, and i am not meaning to point fingers, there is just no better way to recognize and illuminate some things. We read what we want, and we don't read the parts we don't want, and we say what we mean, even when we don't say anything meaningful at all. Push my buttons and i can be knocked unconscious, too.

Audacity wrote: In a nut shell: Determinism in no way suggests that anyone is programming anything. It's simply a recognition that all things happen for a reason. Reasons that no one has any control over. One does not have the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, as free will suggests.

this strikes me as a chimera made up of personal preferences and...something...nihilism? Not sure. "Things happen for a reason" does not equal "i have no choices to make," else the difference in instinct v free will is obscured.

Which is why I said "Reasons that no one has any control over." And because one has no control over the reasons they act as they do it cannot be said they make any choice to act as they do.

ah, ok. I would term this person "asleep" or "unconscious" or "unaware" perhaps, unwilling to assume control of their actions; but this does not mean they have no control, obviously. It just means that they are not interested in assuming responsibility for it.

Audacity wrote:

A dog acts on instinct, for instance, but can still evince preferences--for chocolate, say--and act on choices. So then the concept of "Free Will" is not even well defined, most of the time imo.

So what?

Definition of free will. ........"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."........Source: Wikipedia

so, like the definition for many things, a long list of Biblical terms now, Wikipedia is as errant as most secular sources. Wikipedia's first def for "tares" is "weeds" now, too. You can read with a shovel, or a broom, i guess. "The ability to choose between different possible courses of action" is a retarded conceptualization of "Free Will," as the dog example might illuminate. So then, free will is reduced to your choices for what you might have for dinner, then, and then discussed among "Christians" as possibly not even existing, with straight faces, oblivious to the fact that there is no reason to change your mind if God has determined every roll of the dice.

Audacity wrote: In a nut shell: Determinism in no way suggests that anyone is programming anything. It's simply a recognition that all things happen for a reason. Reasons that no one has any control over. One does not have the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, as free will suggests.

this strikes me as a chimera made up of personal preferences and...something...nihilism? Not sure. "Things happen for a reason" does not equal "i have no choices to make," else the difference in instinct v free will is obscured.

Which is why I said "Reasons that no one has any control over." And because one has no control over the reasons they act as they do it cannot be said they make any choice to act as they do.

ah, ok. I would term this person "asleep" or "unconscious" or "unaware" perhaps, unwilling to assume control of their actions; but this does not mean they have no control, obviously. It just means that they are not interested in assuming responsibility for it.

Audacity wrote:

A dog acts on instinct, for instance, but can still evince preferences--for chocolate, say--and act on choices. So then the concept of "Free Will" is not even well defined, most of the time imo.

So what?

Definition of free will. ........"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."........Source: Wikipedia

so, like the definition for many things, a long list of Biblical terms now, Wikipedia is as errant as most secular sources. Wikipedia's first def for "tares" is "weeds" now, too. You can read with a shovel, or a broom, i guess. "The ability to choose between different possible courses of action" is a retarded conceptualization of "Free Will," as the dog example might illuminate. So then, free will is reduced to your choices for what you might have for dinner, then, and then discussed among "Christians" as possibly not even existing, with straight faces, oblivious to the fact that there is no reason to change your mind if God has determined every roll of the dice.

Your accepted definition of "free will" please.

free will is the knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil--which "angels" have, but dogs do not--combined with the freedom to choose either--which neither of those has. A "forebrain" is likely another way to put it. What makes us distinct from other animals, iow. What makes us gods.

Audacity wrote: In a nut shell: Determinism in no way suggests that anyone is programming anything. It's simply a recognition that all things happen for a reason. Reasons that no one has any control over. One does not have the ability to choose between different possible courses of action, as free will suggests.

this strikes me as a chimera made up of personal preferences and...something...nihilism? Not sure. "Things happen for a reason" does not equal "i have no choices to make," else the difference in instinct v free will is obscured.

Which is why I said "Reasons that no one has any control over." And because one has no control over the reasons they act as they do it cannot be said they make any choice to act as they do.

ah, ok. I would term this person "asleep" or "unconscious" or "unaware" perhaps, unwilling to assume control of their actions; but this does not mean they have no control, obviously. It just means that they are not interested in assuming responsibility for it.

Audacity wrote:

A dog acts on instinct, for instance, but can still evince preferences--for chocolate, say--and act on choices. So then the concept of "Free Will" is not even well defined, most of the time imo.

So what?

Definition of free will. ........"Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action."........Source: Wikipedia

so, like the definition for many things, a long list of Biblical terms now, Wikipedia is as errant as most secular sources. Wikipedia's first def for "tares" is "weeds" now, too. You can read with a shovel, or a broom, i guess. "The ability to choose between different possible courses of action" is a retarded conceptualization of "Free Will," as the dog example might illuminate. So then, free will is reduced to your choices for what you might have for dinner, then, and then discussed among "Christians" as possibly not even existing, with straight faces, oblivious to the fact that there is no reason to change your mind if God has determined every roll of the dice.

I honestly don't recall; although, I may have selected it because Audacity is an audio editing program I use as the volunteer sound tech for the local community theater. *shrug* Had I known it had anything to do with Ray Comfort I wouldn't have used it.

I honestly don't recall; although, I may have selected it because Audacity is an audio editing program I use as the volunteer sound tech for the local community theater. *shrug* Had I known it had anything to do with Ray Comfort I wouldn't have used it.

Actually, it's a blast. A director will come to me with a script looking for certain sound effects and music to go with the play (s)he's directing, and it's up to me to find the appropriate sound effects and modify them to his or her expectations. Same goes for the music, although I rarely play around with it. I Just got done doing Something's Afoot, a satirical poke at Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians---had about 22 sound effects to put together. Right now I'm waiting word on The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde, which looks to be much easier.

Actually, it's a blast. A director will come to me with a script looking for certain sound effects and music to go with the play (s)he's directing, and it's up to me to find the appropriate sound effects and modify them to his or her expectations. Same goes for the music, although I rarely play around with it. I Just got done doing Something's Afoot, a satirical poke at Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians---had about 22 sound effects to put together. Right now I'm waiting word on The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde, which looks to be much easier.

Sounds like it keeps you busy.

Its good to know a bit more about you... to 'see' an actual person behind the type on here.

PaulSacramento wrote:Humans don't go through "heat" like animals do nor do human males have a "bone" in their penis like other mammals.As such, pleasure and stimulation are crucial for there to be an actual sex act to begin with.The fact that sex is very pleasurable to BOTH simply means that there is motivation to have sex, ie: procreate.

And as I pointed out in a post on 12/21

.....3) Being physically weaker, most women are incapable of fending off a male determined to have sex with them.

.....4) Therefore it's unnecessary that women derive pleasure from sexual intercourse in order to procreate.

So relevant.Not.

I guess since something exists in NATURE, then it is ok:Infanticide, Pedophilia, rape, Necrophilia.